Re: MD Re: MOQ:What is a person.

From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 07:32:26 BST

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD Intellectual level - New letter from Pirsig"

    On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:59 pm, Patrick van den Berg wrote:
    > Hi David H,
    >
    > > To me apprehend does not imply 'communication' as it is not a two-way
    > > street.
    > >
    > > When DQ is really
    > >
    > > > primary, we are not the static patterns that 'respond' to DQ (that
    > > > leaves DQ out of who we really are)
    > >
    > > Respond also implies that 'communication' is taking place which to me
    > > isn't
    > > correct.
    > >
    > >
    > > Our identity does not 'contain' DQ our 'identity' is our patterns
    > > which are
    > > capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality.
    >
    > My dictionary gives these words under 'apprehend': comprehend,
    > understand, get, grasp, make out, perceive, take in.
    > So a person is a set of patterns that can 'take in', 'grasp' etc.
    > dynamic quality. Well, okay, I can agree with this definition, but then
    > I want to make a distinction between 'person' or 'self' and 'higher
    > self'. A person is a self, an individual, a personality with certain
    > characteristics, or static quality-patterns. Our higher self has at its
    > root both static and dynamic quality. The self is limited to its own
    > static patterns, and can only apprehend DQ as something that is
    > not-self. By using a concept as 'higher self', you can say that our real
    > identity, or who or what we really are, is beyond a self that can
    > apprehend or 'take in' DQ, which in this definition is not-self (to me).
    > But 'higher self' might include both static and dynamic quality. If DQ
    > (with sqs) is the ground of reality (you might say), than the word
    > 'self' in 'higher self' acknowledges that the ground of reality is the
    > ground of our being (and is not external to this).
    >
    > Can you agree with these definitions?
    >
    > Greetings, Patrick.
    >

    Hi Patrick,

    I have to disagree with your definition of Dynamic Quality as every'thing'
    which is not self as it is a partial definition of Dynamic Quality and as
    such destroys the MOQ. Capturing Dynamic Quality into a concept of 'higher
    self' with Static Quality, is also a definition of this undefinable concept.

    There is a Pirsg comment in Lilas Child which you may find interesting.

    29. The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a
    "self" that is independent of inorganic, biological, social or
    intellectual patterns. There is no "self" that contains these
    patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial agrees
    with both religious mysticism and scientific knowledge. In
    Zen, there is reference to "big self" and "small self". Small
    self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality.

    Regards,

    David Harding.

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 07:31:35 BST